apparently some people here seem to be very technically proficient and know all about this and that. A good pat on the back will solve anything, and technical details can be relegated to the back of the bus.
"You would not expect" is your point. What is your credential to either expect or not expect? Do you have expertise in the area or matter? Are you a camera technician? Do you work for Canon? I'm not jumping on you at all, I'm simply working out your comment and attempting to figure out exactly why you say what you say. Is it because of reality, or imagination? Perhaps you might be able to comment further in order to clarify, thanks.
Edited by Normcar21 on Sep 20, 2007 at 09:27 PM GMT
Shane, what are your credentials with respect to this firmware offering? Have you spent time with the technicians who have developed it, and are you on the team of researchers who are working on the upgrade, or are you simply stating a viewpoint like most of us? If you are "in the mold" of the upgrade, and have some inside info, please elaborate. That would be very cool, and many of us would love to hear from you if that is the case.
Personally, I see no problem with the tracking in AF of this camera, I beg to disagree on that specific point, either in Al Servo or other. I have no problem with focus on the Mark III, I have no problem with "anything" on the Mark III, and am continuously amazed at people who post problems with the camera. I wonder why, and am not really heavily concerned, because it doesn't apply to me. But I still wonder about the ruckus. Surely it was the early models. Now it's solved, so purchase with confidence
Normcar21 - give it a rest with the credentials thing. I interpret Nathan's comment to mean one can't tell the difference between an in focus firmware 1.1.1 image vs. an in focus version 1.1.0 image. Unless I totally missed a link on that site to comparison images of old firmware vs. 1.1.1, there are only in focus web sized sports images to be seen in galleries that are supposed to look good.
Simple, it's working, and now it's time for the cry babies to stop. You know, once I thought that some of you had credibility, now you all sound like cry babies to me, sorry for being so mean, but I'm simply being honest, and without swear words
Normcar21 wrote:
Simple, it's working, and now it's time for the cry babies to stop. You know, once I thought that some of you had credibility, now you all sound like cry babies to me, sorry for being so mean, but I'm simply being honest, and without swear words
Soooo..... Your camera is working, and it's time for everyone else whose camera isn't to 'stop crying'?
Now you are living the trouble of being a first purchaser. I decided to buy that camera 3 times, and cancelled my order 3 times before actually deciding to purchase. I saw the same sort of potential as the Mark II, I was a first purchaser of that camera too, and then the "N" came out
I held back for 3 months, this time, and made a great decision, because my camera works perfectly in all ways.
Edited by Normcar21 on Sep 20, 2007 at 09:54 PM GMT
Paul B wrote:
Obviously, a first quick test can't be conclusive but calling it a "guess" may be a bit harsh. Perhaps the fact that he's spent almost 25 years at Intel working on similar issues has something to do with what he's saying?
I'm sorry but I've been working with electronics for 26 years including companies that design the software tools that companies like Intel use to design their chips. It's a guess. It might be an educated guess, but it's a guess and anyone who claims they can tell it's an inproperly damped electrical loop from listening to an AF system is not being accurate. Honestly if it were this simple do you think the engineers (as in multiple engineers, at least a whole team) at Canon couldn't figure this out also? I've worked on hardware/software systems and there is no way anyone could possibly do more guess in a situation like this.
A responsible engineer might say something like "based on my observations, I think it might be..." but his post makes it sound like has determined it's bad hardware. Then of course it gets blown all out of proportion by repeated posts on multiple boards.
Even let's say he is 100% right. All it would mean is that he listened to 1 bad camera. It's entirely possible that there are cameras with defective hardware. This could then be an isolated incident and not the cause of the multiple complaints.
I stand by my assertion. It's a guess and not a very responsible one without qualifying it better.
The Mark III, if purchased today, and it isn't an old version, in my opinion is going to be an excellent and perfectly working camera, and that is why from now on you will see many businesses offering the camera rather than having it on backorder
Jeff, apparently you do not like me, that is your option. I have no problem with that, you seem to think that I'm trying to prove something, which I'm not. I'm simply stating an opinion, which is mine. Disagree all you wish, no problem. I've always struggled with the "spirit" of the Mark III discussion in this SLR forum but, what the heck, all is well, I don't mind people not agreeing with me.
Jeff, you are a good moderator, thankfully we don't need to love each other to converse
Normcar21 wrote:
Shane, what are your credentials with respect to this firmware offering? Have you spent time with the technicians who have developed it, and are you on the team of researchers who are working on the upgrade, or are you simply stating a viewpoint like most of us? If you are "in the mold" of the upgrade, and have some inside info, please elaborate. That would be very cool, and many of us would love to hear from you if that is the case.
"Perfect sense" is serious words
What are you talking about? That point is, which who knows why you can't see, is the AF is not working for half of those that own and use this camera. To post a few static shots is meaningless...I have many I could post. The point is that no one can't tell if the AF works until they use it.
If you have a good copy, so what? I don't care a lick if yours works or not. Hundreds, if not thousands, have an AF issue with this camera. So what is your point...the logic here is simple. Let me try again...no one can tell from a few static shots if the AF is fixed. You have to use the camera.
Jeff, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think that Canon fixed it because I don't think that it was broken in the first place. I bought mine 3 months after production for good reason. My first "potential" purchase of the camera was probably before your own purchase, as it was back in April, from Camera Canada, but the problems were twofold: cost in Canada and focus issue rumors. I eventually, 3 months later, decided to purchase my camera from the US in order to save 1000 dollars in basic "cost" of item, and also I thought that 3 months was enough time for canon to work out the problems that you people experienced with the "first" purchase of the camera. I recall all of the posts that said, "wow, I now have my Mark III, I'm one of the first"
Well, yep, you were the first, and you got your camera, now you are complaining because you don't like what you got.
I waited and am pleased.
Cheers
Uh, there was a 1.1.1 post that mysteriously disappeared, can you help me in finding it?
So, why are my comments in the thread that I swore never to comment in? Jeff, you are playing games with me and I must say, I didn't expect it. I swore to Slau that I would never post in this string again and here my quote is, in this string. Can you explain that??
